[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [xri] Comments from Jerome Jump
esp. considering it is inconsistant within the same spec, i'd concure w/drummond, that it is errata. =peterd Drummond Reed wrote: > I realize that Appendix A is normative, but this is simply errata. > > > > =Drummond > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > From: Dave McAlpin [mailto:Dave.McAlpin@epok.net] > Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 8:44 PM > To: Drummond Reed; Wachob, Gabe; xri@lists.oasis-open.org; > xri-comment@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [xri] Comments from Jerome Jump > > > > Are you sure it?s pure errata? I realize it?s easy enough to figure out > what was intended, but it looks like a normative change to me. > > > > Dave > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > From: Drummond Reed [mailto:drummond.reed@cordance.net] > Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2005 5:09 AM > To: 'Wachob, Gabe'; xri@lists.oasis-open.org; > xri-comment@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [xri] Comments from Jerome Jump > > > > Speaking of erratta, in writing another document that references the > Syntax spec, I noticed that we forgot to roll one of the final changes > we made to the ABNF in the main doc into the collected ABNF in Appendix A. > > > > It's on line 852/3 it currently says: > > > > xri-gen-delims = ":" / "/" / "?" / "#" / "[" / "]" / "(" > / ")" / "*" / gcs-char > > > > It should match lines 223/4: > > > > xri-gen-delims = ":" / "/" / "?" / "#" / "[" / "]" / "(" / ")" > / "*" / "!" / rgcs-char > > This is pure erratta, but we need to roll it in too. > > > > =Drummond > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > From: Wachob, Gabe [mailto:gwachob@visa.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 12:47 PM > To: xri@lists.oasis-open.org; xri-comment@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: [xri] Comments from Jerome Jump > > > > These don't sound like changes requiring a new draft, but if we do have > a new draft, they should get integrated. > > > > -Gabe > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > From: Jerome Jump [mailto:Jerome.Jump@epok.net] > Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 11:51 AM > To: Wachob, Gabe > Cc: Chetan Sabnis; Dave McAlpin > Subject: XRI Resolution V2.0 > > Gabe, > > In reviewing Committee Draft 01, 14 March 2005 of the Extensible > Resource Identifier (XRI) Resolution V2.0, I came across the following: > > > > 1) On line 864: I believe the constructed XRI should be ?xri: > //@example2?? instead of ?xri://=example2??. This is because the > external synonym (line 859) contains an ?@?, not an ?=?. Or, change > line 859 so that it says ?xri://=example2?. In any case, the two should > be consistent. > > 2) A lot of the XML, while correct, should be reformatted for > easier reading by a human. > > > > Other than that, the specs look pretty good. > > > > -Jerome M. Jump > > Epok, Inc > > > -- > > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.1 - Release Date: 4/1/2005 >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]